that and in a way that does not advantage 1 cent of americans versus another set of americans, which was clearly the case they were making in tampa. it is a tall order, but my money is on him. >> could we talk about that point -- he made that point twice, laura, and i think that is an important one. it felt like in tampa that one of the most important things that happened was that the republicans crystallized their response to the argument that mitt romney favors the rich, which is that barack obama favors the poor. if you look at the medicare ad, basically, you paid into it and now he is putting it towards a program that is not for you. the argument is that you got it tough, and they will make it tougher by picking our pockets

and giving money to people who don't deserve it. stan, you did a series of focus groups in 1984 in which this argument had enormous resonance for white working-class voters, when i was in the reagan era -- it was in the reagan era is against democrats. bill clinton thought he had interred it. how big is that against democrats that they will basically hurt the middle class by diverting money to the poor? >> i do not make up with a great worry over this argument could i just finished a book with james, in which i begin with focus groups, the focus groups we did with the reagan democrats. when he saw that the discussion was totally focused on race -- not just race, but their

economic plight being a function of the government favoring other groups -- >> this was in 1984. >> 1984 -- they were blaming what was happening to blacks with why they were in trouble. when you ask -- you never had that today. they are focused on structural economic problems, which puts the president in a much stronger position, but also makes the case that romney is out of touch with the voters. i don't wake up or read about that. -- worried about that. .> i slightly differen the other side is trying to play the card of 1984.

they will take from you and give to them -- that is coded language. that is the dog whistle. government is synonymous in many people's minds to the undeserving poor, those minorities, and it is very sad that they are trying to do that. it is up to progressives -- the reagan democrats unfortunately forgot who brought them that middle-class, who brought down that second home, that bought on the lake -- that boat on the lake. the other side for the last 30 years has been very effective at painting government is hurting you. i believe we heard this wek the -- this week the laying of the foundation that government action has a role.

>> we heard last night, stan, the point you just made. there is a tension right now in the democratic message around the question of who the bad guys actually are. i feel like elizabeth warren last night very much talked about the folks you just identified -- corporations, wall street. bill clinton has never really talked that way, and he did not last night either. his version is that the bad guys are republicans. they not bad people, but i just want to destroy everything that is precious about america -- they just want to destroy everything that is precious about america. with those crucial battleground states, i can imagine that the first message is very effective,

closing the enthusiasm gap you are talking about earlier, but doesn't it also let those swing voters that the president is trying to bring over? >> in fairness to elizabeth warren, she was not making a broadside against wall street generally. she said that there are folks who rigged the rules. the residence between the ceo of climax -- there is a difference between the ceo of carmax and costco, who lifted employees. you heard that from every other speaker, that there are ways you can do it that brings everybody along. the democratic messages of women's health and choice. it was an alternation back and forth on light long. the president -- the former president, i have to stop doing

-- the former president pulled it all together and said that there is a way forward that includes all the aspects of the economic picture. we don't have to go back to a strategy where somebody has got to be dumped over the side. that is compelling, and it really tees up the president for tonight. >> if you look at it through eyes, the consumers look at corporations and institutions to see their partners or creditors. who was on my side, who is making this happen? we have done so much work in this area. every incident that we measured 10 and 20 years ago have all dropped. when you look to your parents, grandparents, in terms of institutions that we trusted --

they trusted their doctor, their lawyer, and their banker -- they don't trust any of those people any more. when you look at the reading of congress and you say oh, no, this is the old argument and it goes back to populism comet it is much more fundamental and much more aware stan's at. you go through the consumer world, and they know who is a and who is good guy a bad guy. they look at those with good policies versus those to essentially have the negative policies towards their workers, and it goes all the way through. that is one of the things that romney has to deal with, because he is in the middle of that partner-predator argument.

>> this is a critical point, and it is an unresolved point. let's not forget how bill clinton ran for president in 1992, and how he cast those at the top, imposing taxes on millionaires, surtax -- >> he said that the greatest irresponsibility was at the top. >> much sharper than president obama attacking those of the top. we have a problem that started with the lehman crash and tarp. the alienation of white working- class voters began during the last election. even though they were angry about bush, what they were angered about was the elites

washing in to bail out those who got us in to this. washington and wall street coming together for the irresponsible. we have not had more for main street than wall street. when you say go to the center or speak to independents -- the independents want to go after wall street. they think that as a class, the financial institutions have operated with the special interests to make the country and equal. >> romney got absolutely no

bump out of the convention, and i would guess that one reason for that is that there are so few undecided voters right now. i am not sure that there is a bump there. do you think that president obama will get a bump out of the convention, or people's minds so made up? does that now come down to basically just which side gets their people to the polls? >> no doubt about who gets their people to the polls, but i do think that while there are not many undecideds, wanting to what is that there will be a sense of obama and a different perspective. if he handles his speech right,

he will be on the offensive. i go back to 1992. clinton came in in the worst kind of shape and he left and the best kind of shape. based on the first two nights, obama goes from the position of being on the defensive to, i think, a sense of being on the offensive. in the end, when it comes down to is the ability to be able to put together those elements, and we go back to where the vision is and where we are headed. >> you think there are mines that can be changed? >> absolutely. stan and i talked about this yesterday. why don't you pick it up? >> 45%, every week, every month, for the entire year he has gotten up to 46%. i think that structurally we

will go back to a race where the president as at least ahead 3 or four points. there are more groups on the democratic side that are not yet at the numbers that they had in 2008. unmarried women could be 1/4 of the electorate -- 69% for obama in 2008. there are still groups that are receptive to the president that could move, and this convention was aimed at them. >> we have been talking by changing minds. well, there is also the choice between do i stay home or am i motivated, right? that is really -- it is not just getting people out. somebody has to walk out the door. that is what this convention is doing, and what the president

will do tonight -- "we have a lot more work to do, but i need you to come out." >> this the first time we have heard "fired up, ready to go." that has been out of the language and mexicana for the last three years. it happened last night. >> maybe explain what you do as well. you are dealing with the alleged hit at -- with the electorate at an atom level. is there room to change the electorate more than romney did last week? >> the key constituencies there for the president are under- represented in the actual turnout. when you talk about hispanic voters, young voters, whether they turn out or not is more the

question than whether they will switch sides and to the romney folks. the romney strategy down in tampa seemed so poignantly working -- pointedly working to persuade voters that they should already have. at this point, at their convention, the fact that they are having to go back and reinforce their base is, i think, a little bit desperate. there was nothing at the convention that was aimed at the swing voters, with the exception of perhaps the seniors. they're making the case of the raid on medicare, which flies in the face of the facts come up with seniors in florida, there are folks there who have yet to

make up their minds pretty young people are questioning whether to come out again. hispanics -- republicans are counting on them, that hispanics are not going to perform any better than historical levels, which is usually and under- representation of their portion of the population. hispanics come in stronger than they have in the past, which is incrementally happening in every election, then the republicans have big trouble. >> i would like to move off the economy to the question of social issues. the democrats are also working very hard here to fire up their base. feel free to challenge the premise of this question. i have a feeling that it has been interesting moving from tampa to charlotte this time and it seems that the democrats are on offense in the culture wars, and essence -- in a sense.

democrats seem eager to talk about abortion and gay marriage. a, do you agree with that? b, is that about motivating the base, or does that play differently than it used to? >> this is a big issue, and it is critical to who gets engaged in this election. it is not the targets set of groups to it you look at the republican convention -- the hispanic part, the woman part -- you know which group they were targeting. the democratic coalition -- if you look at the democratic coalition, which has grown over the last decade, it is because the coalition has been shipped by the cultural battles, not economic battles. democratic support as got up with suburban voters, a skilled,

professional, wome -- up scale, professional, women, minority voters. in reaction to the evangelical politics that george bush -- these are things that produce a growing democratic coalition. republicans succeeded in 2010 and one to succeed -- want to succeed this time by only talking about budgets, the economy, spending, government, and not social issues. it is the entire frame of values and a world view that has produced a growing democratic coalition and a weakening republican one. want to talkon't about the issues because they don't want this coalition to evolve. democrats do want to talk about it. it is a broader role if you they want to talk about. -- broader worldview they when a

talk about. >> you heard a lot of it speakers last night talk about the broader moral underpinnings. in these economic choices, there is much about values, as much as there is about the arithmetic, as president clinton said. he made a real point that it is the arithmetic, it has to add up. >> maria, to follow up on jame'' question, president clinton signed it the defense of marriage act. president clinton in a variety of ways it tried to signal cultural affinity with culturally conservative whites. he was concerned that -- avoiding big cultural clashes with that constituency. whereas this year, even before the convention, we saw the president take eight firm stance

on contraception, understanding he would be colliding with the catholic church, moving on the dream act, understanding that that would alienate older and blue-collar whites, and race game marriage, knowing that it would make -- embracing gay marriage, knowing that it would make a place like where we are tougher. do you think that he has crossed a rubicon here? on the white side of it, it is more culturally it liberal, even if there is a minority that is conservative -- accepting that he will perform poorly with culturally conservative whites and into a new coalition? >> the clinton white house was a mentor is about trying to thread the needle -- was notorious about trying to thread that needle. i think that the president has come over the last few months, with these policy decisions, is

really owning. on contraception, he understood that he may have angered the bishops, but the majority of catholics in america believe in contraception. the majority of catholics believe that a woman has the right to choose whether or not to terminate a pregnancy. it is really important -- on gay marriage, it is like, "i'm owning this." it is more where americans are. it is reminding people, yet now, there really is a choice here. >> how does that play among hispanics, the contraception and also the gay marriage thing? >> there is an interesting battle going on in maryland right now on gay marriage.

the partnership in maryland that is focused on talking to latinos about gay marriage as well as dream is recognizing that the majority of hispanics are where the american people are on these issues. yes, there is going to be some percentage that are evangelical not, but theho are majority understands as it becomes more accepted. >> this is where america is going. when you talk about the democratic coalition is evolving, this country is evolving. the attitudes of young voters under 29 are very different from older voters, but even older voters are moving in a given direction. -- different direction. that is why the democratic party can feel awful, because not only are the democrats -- can

feel hopeful, because not only of the demographics, but the social makeup appears to be heading towards -- >> just to pick up on laura's point, republicans understand that the country is moving in this direction, which is why they were so focused on denying the right to vote. all those efforts to restrict -- the new poll tax, i have to get an id card, closing early voting -- it is and his standing that the electorate is trending democratic -- it is understanding that the electorate is turning democratic, so let's reduce the amount of people who come out to vote. >> the democrats are still struggling to get 40% among whites.

we will talk about that. let's go to the audience. >> many of the jobs that are in small towns, rural areas, especially across the south, those are now in india or china or somewhere else, and there are folks, their parents and grandparents could all dropped out of school and go to work. now there is no place to work. we heard a lot less and about gm, -- a lot last night about gm, but if you are unskilled in a rural rea, how you ever going to get a job again? >> stan, that goes to your earlier point. >> it is is serious point, and almost to the language they used. they have their own critiques and make that exact same

critique -- the jobs are not here, they are in china, we don't build things in america. they want to know how america is going to be successful. i am looking to finishing up the metaphor of cleaning up the house from the mask they created years ago. they want to know, how to get those jobs back? what is the plan? right now they just go to education. they are very responsive to energy policy, infrastructure policies, even industrial policy, and trade policies that focus on building in america. >> robert schlesinger with "u.s.

news and world report." to you get the sense that one is doing a better job of driving a coherent message for voters than the other? >> i am looking at from my perspective, but i thought the republican convention came out flat. when i say that, it talked to its people within the hall, but it did not go beyond the hall. the thing that michelle, it did so brilliantly is that instead of having the group's up and down and happy, she talked so much beyond the call in a way that connected in terms of empathy and explanation of her husband. last night, the way in which bill clinton -- as you say, best prosecutor there could be, or defense attorney, which ever way

you want to look at it -- he did such a brilliant job. what i saw in tampa was not anything that was "wrong," but to contain into much within and all -- too contained and too much within the hall. >> too much to voters who should already be in their column. for constituencies that are exceeding their future on an improving path -- but when you talk about rural or downscale voters, over the past 15 years they have been seeing a trend in a negative direction, and those are the hardest voters to convince that in recent new strategies that will take us in new direction does not mean leaving them behind.

>> maria, compared the two in terms of messaging. >> i listened in tampa, i thought their message, if you are not paying attention to politics like we are, they took the american dream narrative and made it their own, about individual striving. i was quite concerned that that might resonate, for example, with latinos, who are optimistic and are about individual striving. but i think that this convention and what we have heard again reminded people of what i said earlier, that you don't do it alone. you somehow have to remember that no one does it alone. i'm biased -- i think this

convention has been more effective at at reminding us what the role of government is an why politics matter. >> i thought the republican convention was chaos. speech,t christie's that romney is a person who will make brief recess, and you could come up with about five different -- make brave choices, and you could come up with about five different messages. it was chaos. this first night was about the fact that barack obama is one of us and romney is not. last night, the work that bill clinton did both the diminishing the romney-ryan ticket and bill clinton ratifying and telling the story of barack obama's economic plans, it sets the stage for barack obama to talk about the second term and the future. i think it is developmental.

>> you know, what i thought was kind of interesting is that pew research poll that came out yesterday that showed that more people remembered -- who watched republican convention, more people remembered the clint eastwood's speech than mitt romney's speech. i would guess that that is not good news for the republicans. [laughter] i thought that ann romney made an excellent speech. how many people she moves come i don't know. as for this one, so far, so good. we heard a barnburner of a speech last night. the only downside of that, will people more remember the bill clinton speech than what barack obama says? but i guess that is a good problem to have, so the democrats or ahead at this point. >> i want to follow up on that

really good first question we got a minute ago. i want to make sure i understand you correctly that voters in those communities are receptive to the idea of an industrial policy of some sort. but a little more color on that. one of the big fights in this election is over government intervention in the economy. given everything that was said earlier about the high levels of institutional distrust, it seems almost counterintuitive that people would welcome a more activist government role to solve>> hard to think of an area where people do not choose more regulations over other options. if you talk about energy and other issues, economy standards, they do not want rising prices for fuel. on trade they would be very harsh on dealing with trade practices. kind of where the ordinary voter is. they are looking for stronger

government action on behalf of the american people. they think it is rigged. we have been complacent, they're looking for leaders who will stand up and do serious things. they do not use the word over "government" in that way. >> we have been measuring, should government do more and takeover greater responsibility, and we have had attitudes fairly evenly divided in -- in 1995 when the gingrich congress came in, it was unbelievably government do less. as we came out of bush 43, it was government do more. we are divided, but we have moved back a little bit towards government do more. more importantly with that, it is exactly where stan is.

should government be involved here? we go back to the predator /partner thing. that is i look to government to protect me against the predators. that goes back to the first question, who is going to help me and where? >> i am carey callaghan with the alliance to save energy in washington, d.c. my question is with the platform, obama is seen as driving a clean energy future and has invested a lot through the recovery act dollars. on the other hand, mitt romney when he was governor was very it much a clean energy governor and is now talking about conventional fuel and getting more into the economy. i am wondering, are voters looking at, given the trending to be more liberal on social issues, to look at things more

broadly, how is that playing in your polling? our people attracted to a clean energy economy and to the notion of a green energy economy, or are they all let's just drill, drill, drill, baby, drill. >> i will start on this and say there is a balance that is going on. the answer is, sure, they want more clean energy. they believe if we can find ways for solar energy and all of those elements, yes, they very much like that. but they are also exceptionally practical in terms of this and they are looking for the balance. the balance is much more how do we bring it home rather than being dependent on the middle east and foreign oil sources? it is a combination of those two things, and i do not think it is just one solution. i think whether it is just drill, baby, drill, or all green, i do not think that works

for the american public. they are looking for a combination. >> if you look at our polls in 2006 and 2008, we talk all the time about clean energy economy. the democrats were advocating those things, were on the offensive, and did very well. what has happened with the economic crush and gas prices is that people really want american energy, also related to national security issues. they do want all of them. they actually would like get rid of the subsidies for oil. they would like clean energy. but above all, they want american energy policy is that drive all things american that create jobs. former president clinton talked about it in his speech. in the state of the union, president obama talked about these issues.

you can take those policies in a much bigger way and take them forward. >> yes, over here in the front. >> i have a question about the language obama has to choose tonight when he approaches the government issue. we have a record high of government mistrust. people do not trust congress, they do not trust the administration. at the same time, they have this feeling we are all in it together. what language does obama have to choose to show people that government action will not be government takeover? [laughter] >> well, i think he has got to use language that reminds people where they trust government to do it right.

there is no question that the last 40 years of attacking government and government bureaucrats -- what we saw in the response to katrina, when government does not work, people die. so the language, i think having an example of where government steps in -- we did have financial reform. some of us think it does not go as far as it needs to go, but reminding people that it was unfettered liberty among business to play around with people's money that caused this recession, i think it is finding those examples where government means is working in real wages -- everything from education, you know, the bailout of industry.

>> there was a reason that republicans got to 63% of white seniors and 63% of non-college whites in 2010. those voters overwhelmingly believed that the basic constructs they are setting up, that the obama agenda was taking from them and giving to others, and they very much recoiled against activist government. only 20% of blue-collar whites in polling believe that health care will help them and their families. so how much is a risk -- how --h of a risk is there "fairness is a negative," was your slogan from 1994. >> it is a problem but not the problem you are outlining. first of all, they should not accept the terms of debate. the terms of debate is how well the economy be better, how will

the middle class prosper again. what is our plan for getting there? the government is a piece of it. but to save that, you have to have a plan on a strong economy, that does not mean that you plan to grow government. the government is not the battle. but it is the battle but not the one you're talking about. people think this is a corrupt -- go back to 2010. the issue was tarp and health care. health care was seen as a special interest deal in congress. they watched a very high-profile way that deals were cut in the senate. they think the middle class was cut out of those deals and that is the way washington works. that combined with a tarp is what brought people the economic crisis. they think lobbyists, special interest lobbyists, are the ones who have control in washington. you have to clean up this

government in order for it to work. the real challenge as an incumbent is how president obama is reformist in saying he will bring the change. >> you are saying it is the top benefiting, not the bottom. >> the real problem is that -- is how it is controlled. >> looking for a government, a teddy roosevelt style government, it could be not be more interventionist than that. but it is making sure that the rules are working for everybody in some instrumental way. >> i want to ask the panel one more question, but i think we can do one more quickly from the audience. maybe in the back there? yeah. >> dave with chevron. my question is different. how engaged are the citizens of this country in watching these

conventions and debates, and are they even engaged enough to be enthusiastically going out to the polling places to vote? or are they just turning out? -- or are they just tuning out? >> i think to many americans are not engaged, and i think this is a real problem for the future. even in 2008, which was one of the most dramatic probably campaign season's of all time, the reality is a very large percentage of americans who could have voted did not vote. they did not register, right? they did not come out to vote. so there is something very seriously wrong with our democracy. i am willing to trade voter id for having elections on sundays. the rest of the world gives you an opportunity to vote. we make it really, really hard.

yes, not enough people are watching the conventions, paying attention to politics. i think that there is something deeper that happens. you talk about structural issues. one of them is how do we revive our democracy? >> i take it a little differently than maria, simply saying we are having a $2 billion food fight. without a doubt, that is what is turning voters off. it is all the negative ads on both sides, all the superpacs, everything that is going on. it is not bringing people into the election, it is essentially turning people off. if you were in cleveland, ohio, between april 15 and august 5, you were seeing on average every day 176 spots, day in, day out,

and all of them are going negative. >> it is the content. if coke and pepsi spend a billion dollars accusing each other of being poisoned, who would drink any kind of soft drink after that was over? that is very much part of the problem. >> before we go, i would like bob and james and everybody to weigh in. bottom-line question -- after this convention, where is the race likely to stand, and what will be the key variables and dynamics in terms of events and voter groups? >> why don't you ask something simpler? it is going to stand where it has stood. it is going to be dead even or close to even. i think the difference of course is what starts to happen in terms of enthusiasm and what the democrats come out of this with. the two groups that have been low have been young people and

hispanics. both groups where democrats have been exceptionally strong standing. i think the huge challenge voters are trying to figure out is essentially who gets to be not are we better off than we were quite true years ago, but who gets me to where i want to go. that's the question that will be part of the dialogue throughout the fall. >> i agree. this is about which side is starting to get their key constituents motivated to the polls. young people have not been as motivated as they should be. hispanics perhaps likewise. downscale white voters on the republican side may be more convicted about where they want to be. i do not think they will necessarily come to the democratic side, but they may not show up. seniors are a swing constituency. we will all start to know because early voting is starting now in new mexico. we will be able to start

watching voting for the next two months. >> i have to agree. the seniors are the reagan democrats of 1980 and 1984. it is not surprising that they do not understand who really is attacking medicare. we are a part of that reagan revolution. it is about the enthusiasm and the efforts that many groups are undertaking to reach, particularly latinos, in those states that are going to be critical. so the work is right in front of us. i will say that. >> seniors will be a key swing group, and we should not lose track of the fact that bill clinton made gains on accusing newt gingrich of medicare cuts. this is a long battle. you do not need the race issue

for the battle over seniors. democrats fought for years over who would raise the quota for social security. i think the raise -- i think the race is not dead even. it will probably go to a three or four point lead for the president. but around that three or four point lead is the party idea advantage and party framed advantage, 67 points per the pressure is more on the democratic side. they have more potential with groups to grow. the last thing i would say is i think there are two other things on either end of this. there is a nagging economy. people are still struggling and still weakening. i would not rule out by some probability that some groups could go and say enough. but on the other side there are a lot of people who think that

mitt romney and the congressional republicans and the party republicans are crazy, and maybe at some point they could say go and this thing swing's one way or the other. i think it will most likely end up in that three or four point range, but other scenarios are possible. >> i do not think things are going to change very much. i think the american people are just sour on the whole thing, and i think the negativity is a big part of it. i think it goes even deeper than that. we have seen government now broken. it cannot do anything, and i think people are discouraged and dismayed about that. they put one bunch in and nothing happens until they throw them out and put the of the bunch in, and nothing happens. i do not see much change. i think it will be about where

it was when we went into this convention. >> i agree with that. this has been a very stable race for a long time and is likely to continue to be that. i think the speech tonight is a really big deal. we can overemphasize the importance of the speech. there's a lot of talk about how mitt romney -- it is a defining moment for the president in that he needs to define who he is or redefine what he stands for. everybody said mitt romney needed to do that last week. the obama campaign has had a lot of success in finding who romney is over the course of the summer. but i think obama has also been defined maybe not by the romney campaign but around this vacuum over the question of who he is and what he gets done, which in 2008 was really astonishing.

it does not have to recapture the magic of 2008, it can be an overall program erratic vision -- prom -- programmatic vision. >> i would put the president up at a slight advantage. the result will turn on two valuables -- variables -- will the minority vote stay where it is or go up? the second thing i think that will be critical is, how much of the president's upscale late support -- white support can he hold? i think the only way obama survives is that there is a seven-point gap, 7 points better in college and non-college groups. the larger point, i think, to me, is the question of how we

will come forward with this. what we have seen in the last several months is the parties are deeply divided. this is as divergent a set of policies since at least 1980, if not 1964. while the parties are deeply divided, i think the election above all will show the country is divided and how do we govern when we have two coalitions that are almost exactly equal in size? that is -- i will stop there. would you join me in thanking this terrific panel? i feel really fortunate to have this kind of insight here. [applause] . i will leave john sullivan to give a final remark. >> everybody have a good trip wherever your going, and enjoy your evening. thanks for joining us. >> our live coverage from charlotte continues. this is c-span.

beginning at 4:00 p.m. eastern time, the last day of the democratic convention of 2012 kicks off in the time warner cable arena. that is a live picture of the floor of the convention forum. our preview program will begin at 3:00 p.m. eastern time from the floor of the arena. speaking tonight, president obama. he is due to speak around 10:10 p.m. eastern time. prior to that, by president biden will accept the nomination for the vice presidency. and a representative from wisconsin running against tommy thompson, former governor of wisconsin, for a seven before a senate seat there. the governor of montana will speak as well. the full schedule has not been released by the democratic national convention, but when it is, you will see it on our website, c-span.org, where you

can watch gavel-to-gavel coverage of tonight's convention, which will be on c- span tv as well, and c-span radio. you might have seen the numbers flashed on the screen. we have two more guests coming up today. we want to give you a chance to talk with. we have a few minutes before our next guest and we want to get your reaction to what you would like to hear the president say, what you think he should say, or anything else about the ad that -- about the convention you would like to talk about. go ahead and start dialing in. you can also send emails or post a twitter comment at twitter.com/c-spanwj. you can continue the conversation, and that is #c-

span.dnc. if you want to continue the political conversation with other c-span viewers, facebook.com/c-span. unemployment benefits numbers are just out. here is the associated press article. "fewer americans applied for unemployment benefits last week. a survey showed businesses stepped up hiring in august. the data sketched a brighter outlook for the job market one day before the government reports on august employment. weekly applications for unemployment benefits fell by 12,000 to an adjusted 365,000 labor departments. the four-week average left a volatile measure, ticked up to 171,250. the unemployment benefit applications are a measure of the pace of layoffs. when they consistently fall below three and 75, it suggests

-- three of the 75,000, it suggests that hiring a strong enough to lower the employment rate. the direction is clear, according to joel naroff. the drop in applications likely will not affect the jobs report said to be released tomorrow. the data for that report will compile three weeks ago but could signal better hiring in september. -- orecast that septembe marcia in kansas city on our independent line -- you are on c-span. what is on your mind? caller: i just wanted to think c-span for uninterrupted coverage with comments in

between speakers at each of these conventions. i have watched them both. i appreciate that because i feel like we do not have news anymore, we have sectarian opinions. i just want to say i appreciate it. host: thank you for your call. i appreciate that very much. rochester, new york. is it obadiah? please go ahead. caller: my problems with mitt romney, i just do not trust him. if he wants to be honest, bring his taxes out. that has changed my mind and i'm going to vote for obama. host: next call is from and this on our democrats line. marietta? caller: i watched the convention last week with the republican party, and i was disappointed because neither one explained

exactly in detail how they can help the economy. i was really disappointed, and then watching last night with bill clinton, he basically gave everyone an overlook on how -- this country was in bad shape when obama took office, and people cannot overlook that. and it was bush's time was all messed up, but now we are moving forward. the shape that the country was in then, no one could have actually taken out the bad -- i lost my train of thought. the bad outlook that we had on the economy. so it is like if people actually would listen, regardless of democrat or

republican, listen to what is going on and find that there are solutions there. but both parties have to come together and make this happen because the republicans run the house. instead of being so against obama, we are american people, all of us. we need help from both of them, not one party, but both parties. host: thank you for your call this morning. from "the washington post," this is glenn kessler's fact checker. be wary of these five claims by obama. "our goal is not fact checking, but to understand those claims as we watch his address. we did a similar study of that last week before romney postelection speech." here are the examples the washington post has in there

today for president obama. "four years ago, i promised that would cut middle-class taxes in the average middle-class family, their taxes are about $3,600 lower than when i came into office. now i want to keep taxes exactly where they are on the first $250,000 of everybody's income. obama this is bang abels and oranges -- apples and oranges. obama mixes up -- the $3,600 figure is over four years, a hundred dollars in each of 2009 and 2010 from the making work pay tax credit, $1,000 in each of 2011 and 20 call for mesa should security tax cut. the making work pay tax credit has expired. this is the second one the washington post says be on the lookout for.

"i am also going to ask anyone making $250,000 a year to go back to the tax breaks they were paying under bill clinton." right here obama is defending his proposal to boost taxes on the wealthy by noting that the tax rate that would be the same under bill clinton. obama would restore it to 39.6% rate, set during clinton tossed presidency. while social security taxes are capped, there is no cap on medicare, payroll taxes, and obama does not mention the health care law includes a 0.9% medicare surtax on incomes over 250,000 for couples filing joint returns. if you want to see the other claims, you can go to the washington post and looked up glenn kessler or the fact checker and see what they have to report here.

gerald, independent line, please go ahead. caller: i think that's probably fair because most democrats families do not make $250,000 a year. most middle-class families make about $100,000 to $150,000 a year. i do not see anybody addressing people that are on disability or handicapped. the republican party or the democratic party has addressed the people who are handicapped that have been grouped with senior citizens. we have a lot of extra pills to take, and for supplies, wheelchairs, and we have to

drive these monstrous cars that guzzle gas. we are not given gas maintenance. it costs us ait cost us extra m. we are not getting credit for it. people in the military are. host: that was gerald in florida. this is the time warner arena in charlotte. the convention is scheduled to begin at 4:00 p.m. eastern time. our preview program is scheduled to begin at 3:00 p.m. eastern time. if the convention beginning time changes, plan on watching our preview program an hour before the convention. right now the convention is due

to begin at 4:00 p.m. eastern time. joining us now in our charlotte studio is stephanie schriock. she is the president of emily's list. "early money is like yeast" is the acronym. guest: it is great to be with you this morning. a beautiful city that has welcomed the democrats. it has been so much fun. my voice is on its last leg. thank you for having me on board. emily's list is a 27-year-old organization that is committed to electing pro-choice democratic women to office around the country.

we have successfully helped 16 women become united states senators, 87 women to join the house of representatives. what we believe is that when we get closer to equal representation, when we see our congress looks like our nation with half the table being women and have the table being man, we will truly move this country forward and a faster way with positive policies for our communities. we are dedicated to change the representation of congress one campaign anytime. host: are there particular issues that you care about? guest: our main issue is women's representation. not a single democratic woman enate n a seat in the st

when emily's list started. we do believe the voices of women in these discussions makes so much different to the direction we're going. we rolled out a study at emily's list which lays out what it has meant in the last two decades of having women, even though women are only 17% of congress. we often take things for granted every day. think about maybe you went camping this weekend and you let your child swimming in the la ke maybe you have to leave work to take care of a sick parent. all those policies were led by women in the house and the senate over the past three decades. it makes a huge difference to

have women's voices and that is what we're about at emily's list. host: do you support any gop women? guest: we do not. we feel strongly about the issues of insuring that women will stand for women's rights and freedom on reproductive health care. having choices in your life is the only way to allow yourself to succeed, we believe. we have focused on the democratic party. we were reminded last week at the republican convention that it is the democratic party that is talking the talk and walking the walk. this party has fought so hard to advance women's leadership and women in this country. we have great women in the

legislature and in the house that are fighting for pay equity. it is so clear at the policies of the democratic party are the ones that are moving women forward. we have seen great strides and we want to make sure we continue those strides. host: according to a new poll, women's view of president obama has dropped a bit, where he is now viewed 46% favorably by women and 50% on favorably. guest: i think what we will see this week when we see polling coming out of this convention is that will change. when women get energized and vote, they vote for democrats. think about this number -- 10

million were women than men voted in this country. president obama, a democratic senate and a democratic house. we are highlighting the achievements that have happened in the last almost four years of this administration. and those achievements from the lilly ledbetter fair pay act to health care reform that has finally said just because i am a woman, i'm not a pre-existing condition because i might get pregnant. those things have changed lives for women. we need to get that story out. you'll hear a lot of this in the weeks to come. host: stephanie schriock is president of emily's list and former campaign manager for out franken -- al franken

the numbers are up on the screen if you like to talk to our guest. first call off from any in pittsburgh -- from annie. caller: good morning. thank you first defense -- thank you for c-span. i have a short comment and a statement. two things. i met my mind. i had voted in the past democrat. since kennedy and i studied the people and that is how i vote. i'm going to vote for mitt romney. he has helped the country and people can see that. people have their minds to make and neck and vote for whoever. that does not bother me.

it has bothered me in the past about why they don't teach the educators to teach the subject of the rhythm method. they talk about the pill and abortions. i learned that from way back from my parents. people don't have to take pills. i have four children four years apart. i used to run a store and got held up and a week later i lost. then i wanted to get pregnant again because i wanted four kids. host: let's get a response from stephanie schriock. guest: i think what is most important -- women have to have choices and to have options.

that is what the most important thing. what you have chosen is fantastic. what i choose is the right decision for me. women have to have the ability to make decisions for their family. i think president obama and the democrats have been trying to broaden the opportunities and choices for women. there is a lot around the country that do not want the government dictating any of this. let's make sure women have the right information to make the right choices. host: do you have a fear that if mitt romney was elected that women would not have these choices? guest: i do have a fear. i have a grown-up having all of the choices available to me

because of mothers and grandmothers ahead of us fought those battles. i am hearing the rhetoric and it is a little bit frightening. on the beat that rhetoric, there are policies that they have initiated that we will see fully blown next year if mitt romney and paul ryan are elected and we have a republican congress. these are policies that will prevent women from all sorts of access to health care. look at just the defunding of planned parenthood. nearly 5 million women depend on planned parenthood for preventative health care. we have it all wrapped up in these other issues. we are just talking to access to

total health care. i'm worried about the direction the republican party is going. it is much more conservative than the party i grew up with. they are moving further rate of these issues. host: good morning. caller: thank you for c-span. i want to make a quick comment. people talk about our bodies and our choices as women and these are private matters. we have congressmen who do not understand women's biological bodies but want to make decisions about our bodies and childbearing. i was in a pregnancy that was not viable and that was

hemorrhaging at the seven months mark kir. go ahead and stop the medicines that are keeping me -- i have two children and one has a disability. i let my daughter died naturally. it was a non viable pregnancy. host: stephanie schriock? guest: story after story like this. we have to trust women to make the right decision. we will make the right decisions. it is a good example of why emily's list we feel so strongly that we need more women in these discussions. i would argue that if we had a lot more women in the house or

in the texas legislature, we would not be having these discussions. we will not be having a debate we have had for the last 40 years. we would be talking about advancing our economic opportunity and how we will help our communities succeed. we would not be seeing a health panel that we saw last year where there's a group of five men testifying on whether or not we should have access to birth control. we would not be having a panel talking about whether there should be birth control. this is the difference in having more women's voices in congress. host: we have an e-mail, stephanie schriock.

[captioning performed by national captioning institute] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2012] guest: i hear this story from some money independents and republican women. you do not want government in your personal lives. .hank you for your comment she is referencing the block around todd akin in missouri, a statement about a legitimate rape -- i guess he thinks some legitimate.ot the dema there was a house bill that wanted to change the language and there was a forcible rape versus non-forcible.

i guess some rapes are not rapes in the minds of some republicans. rapes are rapes. that house built that tried to redefine rapes -- there is hardly any words i can say about how disgusted i am about this. that bill was co-sponsored including paul ryan. todd akin just said what a lot of these folks are thinking. host: in 2008, women supported president obama 56%. men supported president obama 48%.

elizabeth warren spoke last night. [video clip] >> president obama spent his life fighting for the middle class. he is fighting a level playing field. the economy does not grow from the top down by from the middle class out and from the bottom up. that is how we create jobs and reduce the debt. [cheers] mitt romney want to give tax cuts to millionaires and billionaires. for middle class families, his plan will hammer them with a new tax hike of about two $2,000. mitt romney wants to give billions in breaks to big

corporations. but he and paul ryan would pulverize financial reform, voucherize medicare and vaporized obamacare. the recall -- the republican vision is clear. "i got mine. the rest of you are on your own." in government to help themselves. host: any reaction? guest: emily's list is so proud of her. she is running for senate in massachusetts and is so correct. this is about an economic future with the middle class is empowered and folks who are

struggling at the bottom are moving up because this has to come from the bottom up and not the top down. looking forward to seeing her in senate.ed states she talked about some of the positions of the romney-ryan ticket. families list did some polling of independent women across the country. ts.se are true independen we ask questions about the aspect of the ryan budget, turning medicare into a voucher system and the cutting of a lot of these programs, education, medicaid for middle class families and the some of the

education programs. what we found was independent women did not like this direction. they said they would vote against a republican who supported these initiatives. these are the independent women's voters who will decide who wins this election. these are critical economic issues for women that they are watching closely. they are getting energize for barack obama. host: next call for stephanie schriock is from a marked in new jersey -- mark. caller: good morning. to support the women's right choose to kill the innocent unborn, which is support the death sentence for a child

molesters and rapists? guest: i hear your point. what is important is trusting women to make the right choices for them and their family. they do a good job. it has been a hard fight to allow women to come into their own in this country. think about this. women only got the right to vote in 1919. my own grandmother was born that year. if she was born earlier, she would not have the right to vote. i think we will get there. we have seen special legislation rollback our rights. we're going to make the right decisions for our families and we're going to protect them.

host: paul on our independent line. this is the "washington journal" and stephanie schriock is our guest. caller: good morning. i would like to return to the same topic. most medical schools teach that is human life begins at conception. we are talking about abortion and two allies, not one -- we're talking about two lives, not one. do you believe that you have the right -- or the government has the right to force anyone to pay for a healthy young women to engage in casual recreational sex and be given pills to

protect her from the natural result from that if she chooses not to have children? host: any response for paul? guest: i want to talk about the personhood issue. it is clear that this has become an issue on the right that is driving some energy. it is so damaging to women and families. women and men who want to have families. person had ballot initiative that would beat dowon the state of mississippi -- that would beat down in the state of mississippi. the american people are not with this far right thought of this.

we trust women in this country. this amendment would prevent so much access to health care for women and would prevent women who want to have children the ability to go through intravenous fertilization. it is a terrible direction that we're seeing. the extreme right wing of the republican party and this is the extreme right wing here and we'll see these initiatives pop up around the country and i think we'll see them lose -- lose by double digits in mississippi and all of the country. this is the wrong direction for the united states. host: 52 candidates are being supported by the organization, is that correct? guest: it is.

we are working directly with 10 women running for the united states senate. that is a record in this country. we have great candidates running for the house and hundreds of women running for seats all across the country. the energy around these races is amazing. i'm so excited to work with folks like elizabeth warren, who'll b and the first openly gy member of congress in wisconsin. we have seen a lot of women that want to get in there and figure out we will move this country forward. emily's list has seen a quadrupling of our organization. our organization is now nearing

2 million people who are joining us to say it is time to have a government that looks more like this country and has more women's voices and sunday an equal number of women and men in congress. it has been a great year already. we need to get women out to vote and we feel good about the process. host: do women apply to families list for funding or do you go out and find them yourself? is a nutsly's list and bolts operation. we recruit, train and we support candidates. i sat in people's houses and a kitchen table talking about whether or not they should run. i'm usually trying to encourage. we get involved in the beginning

and we help those candidates lay out their strategies and help find great staff to run those races. we move into a full endorsement like a claire mccaskill in missouri. we go to our membership and ask our great community of members to give what they can to support our candidate. by millions of dollars, our community responds so amazingly well. we're having a start year in the amount of support we are able to raise for these candidates. we are really involved. host: carol from ohio on our democrats line. caller: yes. i am a democrat. i do not believe in abortion and

i don't believe in gay rights. that doesn't give me the right to tell other people that do believe in those that they do not have their freedom to choose. i have two nephews. one went to desert storm and iraq and was there when his father passed away. they are fighting for our freedoms. look what our country has become. guest: thank you so much for your nephews and their service. that is why we are holding on to our freedoms. it is about choice and freedom. host: she does not agree with your stance on some issue but supports the freedom to have those stances. guest: i think we exactly agree.

the stance is about letting folks make their own decision and not letting government get in the way of a personal decision that folks need to make in their lives. it is about letting folks do what they need to do. we need to live in a country where folks are free to do what they need to do. i believe it it is about freedom. a value that is help so strongly in the democratic party. host: patricia from idaho. caller: hi. i have been watching you for years. i listen to what she was saying. i got pregnant when i was 39. i lived in north carolina and went to the hospital and got my checkup and they passed the on through. the next time i went, they said

i was too old to have this baby. i was in tears. "i am not too old." i am 77 years old. they took me to a room. i had no say so. they vacuumed that baby out of me. now i only have one daughter. she was happy and in childbirth. they neglected my child. i have not forgotten that. it is terrible when i listen to people having abortions. there are these young ladies that the loud and get pregnant and have 3 or four kids and idaho helps them with welfare.

the government pays the babysitter, my niece. they get paid for taking care of these women's children. they have boyfriends living with them. money should look at idaho -- somebody should look at idaho. host: any response? guest: in hearing her story, it is so maddening and something that we're going back to where women do not have the choice. i am 39. too good that story made my heart stopped -- to hear that story made my heart stop. we have to let women make a decision.

we are smart. we have to work together to make sure women get the right health care. that's what we need in this country so we can have healthy families and children when we can have children and when we want to have children and it should be our choice. it does say how far we have come and we have to keep fighting to make sure that we have access to good quality health care. host: let's finish with this e- mail.

guest: that is a great question. i do believe that we need more women in congress. my organization focuses on the democratic side. i would like to see more colleagues on the republican side doing exactly what i'm doing. we need more women. we work on the democratic side. we know that when there are more women in general, the discussion changes. the policies change. when we're looking at our congress, 17% women -- there are more democrats than republicans in congress. the united states is 7 1/7 in the world in the percentage of women in elective office. -- the united states is 77th in

the world in the percentage of women elected to office. this is a huge deal for us. in countries where we of seen this equal out, which there are many examples, we have seen the discoursed change. i would say to my republican counterparts, we need more women in office. we have to do this together. host: stephanie schriock is president of emily's list and she has been our guest. thank you for your time this morning. guest: it has been a great week in charlotte. host: we have one more gas coming up and that is dr. edward kim of carolinas healthcare system. outside the time warner cable

arena, we have a live camera and there are protests going on and these are some anti-abortion or pro-life protests with their signs out there outside the time warner cable arena and they are protesting democrats' policy and the platform. this is going on outside the perimeter. you can see the fencing on the outer perimeter, some simple metal fences and it gets progressively harder to get through security as the closer in you get to the arena. this is the convention center, right around here and as for the immediate is hanging out and the time warner cable arena it is a few blocks from that. you can see some of the scenes

in charlotte and we'll show you in and of this and listen in. >> the ballot box. >> we are not going to get complicated. >> he is the greatest. i love clinton. >> the economy -- president

clinton was a man of the people. i will ~ what he meant to the black community -- i will tell you what he meant to the black community. he supported the people. he was the greatest. >> $1.

>> they are not going to shrink? >> they are pre washed. host: this is some of the live scenes outside the convention center and the time warner cable arena in charlotte. a lot of bending -- vending going on. last night of the convention

will be held. the bank of america stadium has been canceled, called on account of weather. one other button up for sale if we go to the computer. utton and isher bost now on sale in charlotte. that is on sale down in charlotte. we have one more guest from our charlotte studio and that is dr. edward kim with the carolinas healthcare system. tell us about the carolinas healthcare system. caller: thank you, peter. the carolinas healthcare system is a large entity, one of the

largest in the country and it spans over two states. i recently moved to the charlotte area, and from houston, texas. this is a unique entity. it covers emergency room visits to family practice to sell the specialties with cardiovascular as well as the levine cancer institute. the system has a very highly integrated system that brings a lot of medicine to the community. that is still a little different than what we're used to. those folks feel you have to travel long distances. this system has been unique. as i meet the people, it is a very impressive system. there are thousands of employees, 19,000, and they are

all very good as far as physicians. the clinical care, i have been very impressed with. i had not heard much of it before started looking at this region. host: what is your job? there was an initiative to integrate cancer treatment. that has led to the creation of the levine cancer institute. it is a cancer institute without walls. there is a building in downtown charlotte that will open up this coming month and we will be treating people throughout the carolinas. what is unique is that it will have stations throughout the entire network. we will have over 30 hospitals

within this network that will have access for patients to cancer and will be a highly integrated system. our administrative offices are housed in charlotte. it is gong to be an integrated system where the doctors are communicating with each other to give the best care. my position is the chair and investigational therapeutics. i will be in charge of trying to organize programs for common cancers -- lung cancer, breast cancer, colon cancers -- and try to put these doctors and physicians into a network, and that is one of the things i have been doing quite a bit of in my former job and hopefully i can bring some of that to the carolinas as well. host: how important is the nig

your work? guest: they show the way in how we should be driving research. it has been more difficult over the years because of the funding aspects. host: is there an average cost for a patient who comes in and has cancer? is it medicare that pays for most of the cancer patients? guest: one of the duties of where i came from and of the position have is that i don't have to look at a bill or see what amount of money is charged for patients. i get to be the doctor and from healthcare standpoint, i want to

be able to access to whatever drugs or technology that i think is needed to help treat the patient. choices sometimes can become limited or it depends on what coverages certain patients have. i do not have to deal with that. we treat any patient that comes to the door. it doesn't matter if you have good insurance, bad insurance, or no insurance. what you are reimbursed or how they charge it can be very complex the route different systems and different regions of the country. you can have two disparate charges in the same city depending of what the government

does. i was an economics major for about a year and a half. i did not think i would understand all the complexities involved in its billing. i do not know if i would understand that. i have devoted a lot of my life to research. i want to make a difference for patients and the feel like the carolinas healthcare system with the levine cancer institute is bringing experts from across the country. we are building the infrastructure to go out and treat patients. squads.these flags on they will go out and treat

people. they don't have to be shipped in with ambulances. we want to network with the community and let people have choices. the center i came from, i saw patients from all around the world. it is difficult when you're dealing with cancer to be displaced from their home for any point of time. hopefully this is the system that we're developing and will implement. host: heavy seen any impact from the passage of the health care act? guest: i have not at this time. many of us follow what is happening in washington and this trickle down to the state and local level. it has been sometimes more difficult to order some tests for some patients.

i like that we have choices and access to different drugs and different technologies in this country. in some systems around the world, there is not a lot of access. many patients who want to have those opportunities to be treated with certain drugs or research drugs and certain technologies will come here. i appreciate that for my patients. host: there is a new thing happening, these scans the people can have. do you think that is money well spent? guest: just because the technology exists does not mean that everybody should use it. i think it is another tool in the tool box that we have. physicians need to be discussing with other physicians.

meetings where physicians get together or meetings that the nih will sponsor will have guidelines to help a physician guide it treatment for the patient is very important. the technology exists, doesn't mean everybody should use it. a lot of that is because we need to do more education and to show the evidence of where a certain tests can be beneficial. host: let's take some calls for dr. edward kim of carolinas healthcare system. we're trying to learn a few other aspects about the host cities that the conventions are being held in. james is in mississippi. good morning. caller: good morning.

please host: go ahead -- host: please go ahead. caller: i am a disabled veteran. i have to go so far away. you don't have committed the haveh-care -- you don't community health care. and it should be that we should be able to go -- if we needed something, we should be able to go to a local hospital and get the test done. ism what i've seen, the care great, but you have to drive so far. host: dr. kimm? guest: james, i work in the v.a.

hospital myself and i applaud you. the point you brought up is important. he has to drive a long distance to get his care. that heightened exactly our message and one reason i left the best cancer center in the country to come here. the opportunity in establishing a hospital network that gives access to patients who have cancer throughout an entire network over two different states was appealing and i do believe that this is a unique model and one that will serve as a model for future systems. we have to make access better. we have to make it available for local communities.

it is tough growing up in a small community. we didn't want to drive to chicago. we wanted to allow the care at home and to feel sure that there was communication going on between the larger centers and the smaller centers. it doesn't matter how big you are in the levine cancer institute model. we can communicate with each other clearly. we have launched a guidelines initiative. we'll have centralized guidelines on how to treat patients with different tumor types throughout the system so we can be consistent in the type of care we can deliver. the proper referral to the right place to have that procedure done and that is the principle of where we're going

with an nothing james' points are excellent. host: who is the levine family? guest: they were generous in supporting. there was a commitment to build an integrated cancer service. levines have been part of the family dollar operation. i appreciate there are people that can think any more broad sense. now they can make a bigger impact. with his startup and breeding folks from around the country to energize this region, to provide another option for an

integrated health care network that will focus on delivering the best type of cancer care out there, this is appreciative in my aspect. i don't know if he had members of his family with cancer. i appreciate anything whether it is my own patients they give toward research purposes. it is difficult with funding and any little bit helps. i've been the beneficiary of a very gracious patients who want the support of a broader cause of trying to find cures for cancer. host: family dollars is one of the fortune 500 headquarters that is headquartered in charlotte. thank you for holding. caller: thank you for taking my call. i am an independent. your organization is a

nonprofit, private organization, correct? guest: yes, it is. caller: the government is $16 trillion in debt. i think we should let people create their own systems and of private donors to help with medical issues, especially for women's health. governments taxes are for people of all different views. i don't think it is fair to fund abortion with government taxes when we're so in debt. we should not let programs like planned pparenthood disappear. we have all kinds of non-profit

organizations in this country. women would donate for that if they believe in abortions. allow women to have those choices. host: and a response from ashley? guest: i grew up in indiana so we are neighbors. there is a big emphasis on women's health and i think that is important. i am a lung cancer expert and that is what i've done a majority of my work. i respect what the organizations for breast cancer and others have done and they serve as a model as far as how they have raised awareness for cancer and everybody is wearing pink. major league athletes are wearing pink. cancelung cancer.one

more women die from lung cancer than from breast cancer. everybody will blame the smoking. we're finding that there are significant number of people who never smoked or grow barely smoked who now developed lung cancer. we have identified some interesting markers in the tumors to help them with certain therapies. part of what i believe in, to carolina and to the levine cancer institute is that we need to treat the patients on the whole. part of that is to set up survivorship programs. a patient is still a patient even when you're done with the therapy. it stays with you. this is not having your knee

scoped. we need to continue to care for these patients beyond their treatment. part of what we are establishing is the integrative medicine program. this will be for patients who have had treatment and now need to be followed long-term. with breast cancer and prostate cancer and other cancers in which you have good outcomes, the ramifications of treatment can occur much later. these can comeback. we want to treat the patient and we felt these will be important to people in the community to have these lifestyle options to help cope with any of the mental aspects or side effects that occur while being treated for cancer. it is a dramatic experience.

i have not been through a personally. i have witnessed this in many patients. we need to focus on preventive health, survivorship, and integrative medicine to help these patients become very functional and allowing them to do what they wanted. hopefully it will spur some advocates to continue raising awareness for cancer. host: where in indiana are you from? do think it is the future that people will need to drive to a city like chicago or indianapolis to get treatment? we have received a tweet. guest: yeah. i grew up in terre haute,

indiana and grow up in madison, wisconsin. that is worked larry bird played his college ball -- is where larry bird played his college ball. that is what attracts me to the carolinas healthcare system and levine cancer institute model. it is not about being in charlotte and having the best care in one area. it is about going to the community, establishing different sites that are accessible -- 15-minute drives as opposed to one-hour drives, and integrating those folks. the faculty is incredible and they care about patient care. we're trying to create a system where you can deliver the best patient care and research.

this will be the first of its kind in north carolina. these are clinics in which would get the earliest drugs, research drugs and begin testing them. for many patients, it is their only option. the caller was probably try to find a drug he could take for its cancer. he described how miserable he is in a hotel. i agree. i like being at home. going through cancer is a trying time. you want your family and your pets around do. i would help a similar type prices could occur in indiana. i have not been back in several years.

there is a huge effort in the carolinas to deliver the best care and the best about the best research. we have plans to have several phase one clinics throughout our system placed geographically so there is access. if you live in south carolina, you will not have to drive very far to get to a phase one center. you do not have to get on a plane and travel to be in a different state and trastate ina stay in a hotel. it is clearly something i have seen that is a good vision and strongly supported by the leadership at chs. i am excited by the fact that we will be able to bring this type of comprehensive cancer care, comprehensive survivorship, and

cutting edge research. research these days is not just about drugs. it is all about each individual patients. a lot of the work i am bringing here is to look at a patient individually. the irony about clinical trials and research is there is a lot of focus on the drug. is it good or not good? i do not view them as good or bad. we have to look at the patience and all patients are good. we have to figure out which drugs are the best for that individual? that is the personalization that we need. it start by looking at the actual cancer inside the body, figuring out what is unique and not unique and then try to match the best drug out there to that patient's tumor. that is the future of how cancer

will be done. whether you are talking about: cancer, lung cancer, or breast cancer, there are successes and failures. what we are going to try to focus on is each individual person, their cancer, and what is unique about their cancer. it has a different type of gene set. we have to figure out what is driving that cancer. if we can inhibit them, then we will have treated that patient's kantor effect of a. that is what i believe the future of cancer research will be. something that we pioneered through our studies and where i hope we will be able to take the next step and bring this type of personalized care out to the

community to the folks who need it the most. host: we have been talking to doctor edward kim of carolinas healthcare system. dr. kim, thank you for sharing a little bit about your work with us. our live coverage from charlotte continues. here is that time warner cable arena. the convention will begin at 4:30 p.m. eastern time. our preview program will begin at 3:30 p.m. eastern time. as always, gavel-to-gavel coverage on c-span tv, c- span.org, and c-span radio. you will be able to watch all of the proceedings. president obama due to speak at 10:10 p.m. eastern time this evening.

this picture of formerresident bill clinton this morning who nominated president obama last night. this was president clinton walking out on some of the stage. we want to show you that speech now. it is 48 minutes in length. ♪ >> ladies and gentlemen, please welcome president bill clinton. ♪ [cheers and applause] >> thank you very much. thank you.

thank you. now, mr. mayor, fellow democrats, we are here to nominate a president. [cheers and applause] and i've got one in mind. [cheers and applause] i want to nominate a man whose own life has known its fair share of adversity and uncertainty. i want to nominate a man who ran for president to change the course of an already weak economy and then just six weeks

before his election, saw it suffer the biggest collapse since the great depression; a man who stopped the slide into depression and put us on the long road to recovery, knowing all the while that no matter how many jobs that he saved or created, there'd still be millions more waiting, worried about feeding their own kids, trying to keep their hopes alive. i want to nominate a man who's cool on the outside [cheers and applause] but who burns for america on the inside. [cheers and applause] i want -- i want a man who believes with no doubt that we can build a new american dream economy, driven by innovation and creativity, but education and -- yes -- by cooperation.

and by the way, after last night, i want a man who had the good sense to marry michelle obama. [cheers and applause] you know -- i -- i want -- i want barack obama to be the next president of the united states. [cheers and applause] and i proudly nominate him to be the standard-bearer of the democratic party. [cheers and applause] now, folks, in tampa a few days ago, we heard a lot of talk -- all about how the president and the democrats don't really

believe in free enterprise and individual initiative, how we want everybody to be dependent on the government, how bad we are for the economy. this republican narrative -- this alternative universe -- [laughter] says that every one of us in this room who amounts to anything, we're all completely self-made. one of the greatest chairmen the democratic party ever had, bob strauss -- used to say that ever politician wants every voter to believe he was born in a log cabin he built himself. [laughter] but, as strauss then admitted, it ain't so. we democrats -- we think the country works better with a strong middle class, with real opportunities for poor folks to work their way into it -- with a relentless focus on the

future, with business and government actually working together to promote growth and broadly share prosperity. you see, we believe that "we're all in this together" is a far better philosophy than "you're on your own." [cheers and applause] it is. so who's right? well, since 1961, for 52 years now, the republicans have held the white house 28 years, the democrats, 24. in those 52 years, our private economy has produced 66 million private sector jobs.

so what's the job score? republicans, 24 million; democrats, 42. [cheers and applause] now, there's -- there's a reason for this. it turns out that advancing equal opportunity and economic empowerment is both morally right and good economics. why? because poverty, discrimination and ignorance restrict growth. [applause] when you stifle human potential, when you don't invest in new ideas, it doesn't just cut off the people who are affected; it hurts us all. [applause] we know that investments in education and infrastructure

and scientific and technological research increase growth. they increase good jobs, and they create new wealth for all the rest of us. [applause] now, there's something i've noticed lately. you probably have too. and it's this. maybe just because i grew up in a different time, but though i often disagree with republicans, i actually never learned to hate them the way the far right that now controls their party seems to hate our president and a lot of other democrats. [cheers and applause] i -- that would be impossible for me because president eisenhower sent federal troops to my home state to integrate little rock central high school. president eisenhower built the interstate highway system. when i was a governor, i worked

with president reagan and his white house on the first round of welfare reform and with president george h.w. bush on national education goals. i'm actually very grateful to -- if you saw from the film what i do today, i have to be grateful, and you should be, too -- that president george w. bush supported pepfar. it saved the lives of millions of people in poor countries. [applause] and i have been honored to work with both presidents bush on natural disasters in the aftermath of the south asian tsunami, hurricane katrina, the horrible earthquake in haiti. through my foundation, both in america and around the world, i'm working all the time with democrats, republicans and independents. sometimes i couldn't tell you for the life who i'm working with because we focus on solving problems and seizing opportunities and not fighting all the time. [cheers and applause]

and so here's what i want to say to you, and here's what i want the people at home to think about. when times are tough and people are frustrated and angry and hurting and uncertain, the politics of constant conflict may be good. but what is good politics does not necessarily work in the real world. what works in the real world is cooperation. what works in the real world is cooperation, business and government, foundations and universities. ask the mayors who are here. [applause] los angeles is getting green and chicago is getting an infrastructure bank because republicans and democrats are working together to get it. they didn't check their brains at the door. they didn't stop disagreeing,

but their purpose was to get something done. now, why is this true? why does cooperation work better than constant conflict? because nobody's right all the time, and a broken clock is right twice a day. [laughter] [applause] and every one of us -- every one of us and every one of them, we're compelled to spend our fleeting lives between those two extremes, knowing we're never going to be right all the time and hoping we're right more than twice a day. [laughter] unfortunately, the faction that now dominates the republican party doesn't see it that way. they think government is always the enemy, they're always right, and compromise is weakness. just in the last couple of elections, they defeated two distinguished republican senators because they dared to cooperate with democrats on issues important to the future of the country, even national security. they beat a republican

congressman with almost a hundred percent voting record on every conservative score, because he said he realized he did not have to hate the president to disagree with him. boy, that was a nonstarter, and they threw him out. [laughter] one of the main reasons we ought to re-elect president obama is that he is still committed to constructive cooperation. look at his record. [applause] look at his record. [applause] look at his record. he appointed republican secretaries of defense, the army and transportation. he appointed a vice president who ran against him in 2008. and he trusted that vice president to oversee the successful end of the war in iraq and the implementation of the recovery act. [cheers and applause] and joe biden -- joe biden did a great job with both.

[cheers and applause] he -- president obama -- president obama appointed several members of his cabinet even though they supported hillary in the primary. heck, he even appointed hillary. [laughter] [cheers and applause] wait a minute. i am -- i am very proud of her. i am proud of the job she and the national security team have

done for america. [cheers and applause] i am grateful that they have worked together to make us safer and stronger, to build a world with more partners and fewer enemies. i'm grateful for the relationship of respect and partnership she and the president have enjoyed and the signal that sends to the rest of the world, that democracy does not have a blood -- have to be a blood sport, it can be an honorable enterprise that advances the public interest. [cheers and applause] now -- besides the national security team, i am very grateful to the men and women who've served our country in uniform through these perilous times. [applause] and i am especially grateful to

michelle obama and to joe biden for supporting those military families while their loved ones were overseas -- and for supporting our veterans when they came home, when they came home bearing the wounds of war or needing help to find education or jobs or housing. president obama's whole record on national security is a tribute to his strength, to his judgment and to his preference for inclusion and partnership over partisanship. we need more if it in washington, d.c. [applause] now, we all know that he also tried to work with congressional republicans on health care, debt reduction and new jobs. and that didn't work out so well. [laughter] but it could have been because,

as the senate republican leader said in a remarkable moment of candor two full years before the election, their number one priority was not to put america back to work; it was to put the president out of work. [booing] well, wait a minute. senator, i hate to break it to you, but we're going to keep president obama on the job. [cheers and applause] now, are you ready for that? are you willing to work for it. ? oh, wait a minute. [crowd chants] in tampa --

in tampa -- in tampa -- did y'all watch their convention? i did. in tampa, the republican argument against the president's re-election was actually pretty simple -- pretty snappy. it went something like this: we left him a total mess. he hasn't cleaned it up fast enough. so fire him and put us back in. [laughter] [cheers and applause] now -- but they did it well. they looked good; the sounded good. they convinced me that -- they all love their families and their children and were grateful they'd been born in america and all that -- really, i'm not being -- they did. [laughter] and this is important, they convinced me they were honorable people who believed what they said and they're going to keep every commitment they've made.

we just got to make sure the american people know what those commitments are -- because in order to look like an acceptable, reasonable, moderate alternative to president obama, they just didn't say very much about the ideas they've offered over the last two years. they couldn't because they want to the same old policies that got us in trouble in the first place. they want to cut taxes for high- income americans, even more than president bush did. they want to get rid of those pesky financial regulations designed to prevent another crash and prohibit future bailouts. they want to actually increase defense spending over a decade $2 trillion more than the pentagon has requested without saying what they'll spend it on. and they want to make enormous cuts in the rest of the budget, especially programs that help the middle class and poor children. as another president once said,

there they go again. [laughter] [cheers and applause] now, i like -- i like -- i like the argument for president obama's re-election a lot better. here it is. he inherited a deeply damaged economy. he put a floor under the crash. he began the long, hard road to recovery and laid the foundation for a modern, more well- balanced economy that will produce millions of good new jobs, vibrant new businesses and lots of new wealth for innovators. [applause] now, are we where we want to be today? no. is the president satisfied? of course not. but are we better off than we

were when he took office? [cheers and applause] and listen to this. listen to this. everybody -- when president barack obama took office, the economy was in free fall. it had just shrunk 9 full percent of gdp. we were losing 750,000 jobs a month. are we doing better than that today? the answer is yes. now, look. here's the challenge he faces and the challenge all of you who support him face. i get it. i know it. i've been there. a lot of americans are still angry and frustrated about this economy. if you look at the numbers, you know employment is growing, banks are beginning to lend again. and in a lot of places, housing

prices are even beginning to pick up. but too many people do not feel it yet. i had the same thing happen in 1994 and early '95. we could see that the policies were working, that the economy was growing. but most people didn't feel it yet. thankfully, by 1996 the economy was roaring, everybody felt it, and we were halfway through the longest peacetime expansion in the history of the united states. [cheers and applause] but -- wait, wait. the difference this time is purely in the circumstances. president obama started with a much weaker economy than i did. listen to me, now. no president -- no president, not me, not any of my predecessors, no one could have fully repaired all the damage

that he found in just four years. [cheers and applause] now -- he has -- he has laid the foundation for a new, modern, successful economy of shared prosperity. and if you will renew the president's contract, you will feel it. you will feel it. [applause] folks, whether the american people believe what i just said or not may be the whole election. i just want you to know that i believe it. with all my heart, i believe it. [cheers and applause]

now, why do i believe it? i'm fixing to tell you why. i believe it because president obama's approach embodies the values, the ideas and the direction america has to take to build the 21st-century version of the american dream: a nation of shared opportunities, shared responsibilities, shared prosperity, a shared sense of community. so let's get back to the story. in 2010, as the president's recovery program kicked in, the job losses stopped and things began to turn around. the recovery act saved or created millions of jobs and cut taxes -- let me say this again -- cut taxes for 95 percent of the american people. [applause] and, in the last 29 months, our economy has produced about 4.5 million private sector jobs.

we could have done better, but last year the republicans blocked the president's job plan, costing the economy more than a million new jobs. so here's another job score. president obama: plus 4.5 million. congressional republicans: zero. [cheers and applause] during this period -- during this period, more than 500,000 manufacturing jobs have been created under president obama. that's the first time manufacturing jobs have increased since the 1990s. [applause] and i'll tell you something else. the auto industry restructuring worked. [applause] it saved -- it saved more than a million jobs, and not just at gm, chrysler and their dealerships but in auto parts manufacturing all over the

country. that's why even the automakers who weren't part of the deal supported it. they needed to save those parts suppliers too. like i said, we're all in this together. [applause] so what's happened? there are now 250,000 more people working in the auto industry than on the day the companies were restructured. [cheers and applause] so -- now, we all know that governor romney opposed the plan to save gm and chrysler. so here's another job score. are you listening in michigan and ohio and across the country? [cheers and applause] here -- here's another job score: obama, 250,000; romney,

zero. [cheers and applause] now, the agreement the administration made with the management, labor and environmental groups to double car mileage, that was a good deal too. it will cut your gas prices in half, your gas bill. no matter what the price is, if you double the mileage of your car, your bill will be half what it would have been. it will make us more energy independent. it will cut greenhouse gas emissions. and according to several analyses, over the next 20 years, it'll bring us another half a million good new jobs into the american economy. [cheers and applause] the president's energy strategy, which he calls "all of the above," is helping too. the boom in oil and gas production, combined with greater energy efficiency, has driven oil imports to a near- 20- year low and natural gas production to an all-time high.

and renewable energy production has doubled. [applause] of course, we need a lot more new jobs. but there are already more than 3 million jobs open and unfilled in america, mostly because the people who apply for them don't yet have the required skills to do them. so even as we get americans more jobs, we have to prepare more americans for the new jobs that are actually going to be created. the old economy is not coming back. we've got to build a new one and educate people to do those jobs. [cheers and applause] the president -- the president and his education secretary have supported community colleges and employers in working together to train people for jobs that are actually open

in their communities -- and even more important after a decade in which exploding college costs have increased the dropout rate so much that the percentage of our young people with four- year college degrees has gone down so much that we have dropped to 16th in the world in the percentage of young people with college degrees. so the president's student loan is more important than ever. here's what it does -- here's what it does. [applause] you need to tell every voter where you live about this. it lowers the cost of federal student loans. and even more important, it give students the right to repay those loans as a clear, fixed, low percentage of their income for up to 20 years. [cheers and applause] now what does this mean? what does this mean? think of it.

it means no one will ever have to drop out of college again for fear they can't repay their debt. [applause] and it means -- it means that if someone wants to take a job with a modest income, a teacher, a police officer, if they want to be a small-town doctor in a little rural area, they won't have to turn those jobs down because they don't pay enough to repay they debt. their debt obligation will be determined by their salary. this will change the future for young america. [cheers and applause] i don't know about you -- but on all these issues, i know we're better off because president obama made the decisions he did. now, that brings me to health care.

[cheers and applause] and the republicans call it, derisively, "obamacare." they say it's a government takeover, a disaster, and that if we'll just elect them, they'll repeal it. well, are they right? let's take a look at what's actually happened so far. first, individuals and businesses have already gotten more than a billion dollars in refunds from insurance companies because the new law requires 80 to 85 percent of your premium to go to your health care, not profits or promotion. [cheers and applause] and the gains are even greater than that because a bunch of insurance companies have applied to lower their rates to comply with the requirement. second, more than 3 million young people between 19 and 25 are insured for the first time

because their parents' policies can cover them. [cheers and applause] millions of seniors are receiving preventive care, all the way from breast cancer screenings to tests for heart problems and scores of other things. and younger people are getting them, too. fourth, soon the insurance companies -- not the government, the insurance companies -- will have millions of new customers, many of them middle-class people with pre- existing conditions who never could get insurance before. [applause] now, finally, listen to this. for the last two years -- after going up at three times the rate of inflation for a decade, for the last two years health care costs have been under 4 percent in both years for the first time in 50 years.

[cheers and applause] so let me ask you something. are we better off because president obama fought for health care reform? you bet we are. now, there were two other attacks on the president in tampa i think deserve an answer. first, both governor romney and congressman ryan attacked the president for allegedly robbing medicare of $716 billion. theys the same attack leveled against the congress in 2010, and they got a lot of votes on it. but it's not true. reallyere's what happened. you be the judge. here's what really happened. there were no cuts to benefits at all. none. what the president did was to save money by taking the

recommendations of a commission of professionals to cut unwarranted subsidies to providers and insurance companies that were not making people healthier and were not necessary to get the providers to provide the service. and instead of raiding medicare, he used the savings to close the doughnut hole in the medicare drug program -- and -- you all got to listen carefully to this; this is really important -- and to add eight years to the life of the medicare trust fund so it is solvent till 2024. [cheers and applause] so -- so president obama and the democrats didn't weaken medicare; they strengthened

medicare. now, when congressman ryan looked into that tv camera and attacked president obama's medicare savings as, quote, the biggest, coldest power play, i didn't know whether to laugh or cry -- because that $716 billion is exactly, to the dollar, the same amount of medicare savings that he has in his own budget. [applause] you got to get one thing -- it takes some brass to attack a guy for doing what you did. [laughter] [cheers and applause]

so -- now, you're having a good time, but this is getting serious, and i want you to listen. [laughter] it's important, because a lot of people believe this stuff. now, at least on this issue, on this one issue, governor romney has been consistent. [laughter] he attacked president obama too, but he actually wants to repeal those savings and give the money back to the insurance company. he wants to go back to the old system, which means we'll reopen the doughnut hole and force seniors to pay more for drugs, and we'll reduce the life of the medicare trust fund by eight full years. so if he's elected, and if he

does what he promised to do, medicare will now grow broke in 2016. think about that. that means, after all, we won't have to wait until their voucher program kicks in 2023 -- to see the end of medicare as we know it. they're going to do it to us sooner than we thought. [applause] now, folks, this is serious, because it gets worse. and you won't be laughing when i finish telling you this. they also want to block-grant medicaid, and cut it by a third over the coming 10 years. of course, that's going to really hurt a lot of poor kids. but that's not all. lot of folks don't know it, but nearly two-thirds of medicaid is spent on nursing home care for medicare seniors -- who are eligible for medicaid.

[applause] it's going to end medicare as we know it. and a lot of that money is also spent to help people with disabilities, including -- a lot of middle-class families whose kids have down's syndrome or autism or other severe conditions. and honestly, let's think about it, if that happens, i don't know what those families are going to do. so i know what i'm going to do. i'm going to do everything i can to see that it doesn't happen. we can't let it happen. we can't. [cheers and applause] now -- wait a minute.

let's look -- [crowd chants] let's look at the other big charge the republicans made. it's a real doozy. they actually have charged and run ads saying that president obama wants to weaken the work requirements in the welfare reform bill i signed that moved millions of people from welfare to work. wait, you need to know, here's what happened. nobody ever tells you what really happened -- here's what happened. when some republican governors asked if they could have waivers to try new ways to put people on welfare back to work, the obama administration listened because we all know it's hard for even people with good work histories to get jobs today.

so moving folks from welfare to work is a real challenge. and the administration agreed to give waivers to those governors and others only if they had a credible plan to increase employment by 20 percent, and they could keep the waivers only if they did increase employment. now, did i make myself clear? the requirement was for more work, not less. [cheers and applause] so this is personal to me. we moved millions of people off welfare. it was one of the reasons that in the eight years i was president, we had a hundred times as many people move out of poverty into the middle class than happened under the previous 12 years, a hundred times as many. it's a big deal. but i am telling you the claim that president obama weakened welfare reform's work requirement is just not true.

but they keep on running the ads claiming it. you want to know why? their campaign pollster said, we are not going to let our campaign be dictated by fact- checkers. [laughter] [cheers and applause] now, finally i can say, that is true. [laughter] [cheers and applause] i -- i couldn't have said it better myself. [laughter] and i hope you and every american within the sound of my voice remembers it every time they see one of those ads, and it turns into an ad to re-elect barack obama and keep the fundamental principles of personal empowerment and moving everybody who can get a job into work as soon as we can. [cheers and applause]

now, let's talk about the debt. today, interest rates are low, lower than the rate of inflation. people are practically paying us to borrow money, to hold their money for them. but it will become a big problem when the economy grows and interest rates start to rise. we've got to deal with this big long- term debt problem or it will deal with us. it will gobble up a bigger and bigger percentage of the federal budget we'd rather spend on education and health care and science and technology. it -- we've got to deal with it. now, what has the president done? he has offered a reasonable plan of $4 trillion in debt reduction over a decade, with 2 1/2 trillion coming from -- for every $2 1/2 trillion in spending cuts, he raises a dollar in new revenues -- 2 1/2- to-1. and he has tight controls on

future spending. that's the kind of balanced approach proposed by the simpson-bowles commission, a bipartisan commission. now, i think this plan is way better than governor romney's plan. first, the romney plan failed the first test of fiscal responsibility. the numbers just don't add up. i mean, consider this. what would you do if you had this problem? somebody says, oh, we've got a big debt problem. we've got to reduce the debt. so what's the first thing you say we're going to do? well, to reduce the debt, we're going to have another $5 trillion in tax cuts heavily weighted to upper-income people. so we'll make the debt hole bigger before we start to get out of it. now, when you say, what are you going to do about this $5 trillion you just added on? they say, oh, we'll make it up by eliminating loopholes in the tax code.

so then you ask, well, which loopholes, and how much? you know what they say? see me about that after the election. [laughter] i'm not making it up. that's their position. see me about that after the election. now, people ask me all the time how we got four surplus budgets in a row. what new ideas did we bring to washington? i always give a one-word answer: arithmetic. [cheers and applause] if -- arithmetic! if they stay with their $5 trillion tax cut plan -- in a debt reduction plan? -- the arithmetic tells us, no matter what they say, one of three things is about to happen.

one, assuming they try to do what they say they'll do, get rid of -- pay -- cover it by deductions, cutting those deductions, one, they'll have to eliminate so many deductions, like the ones for home mortgages and charitable giving, that middle-class families will see their tax bills go up an average of $2,000 while anybody who makes $3 million or more will see their tax bill go down $250,000. [crowd boos] or, two, they'll have to cut so much spending that they'll obliterate the budget for the national parks, for ensuring clean air, clean water, safe food, safe air travel. they'll cut way back on pell grants, college loans, early childhood education, child nutrition programs, all the programs that help to empower middle-class families and help poor kids. oh, they'll cut back on investments in roads and bridges and science and

technology and biomedical research. that's what they'll do. they'll hurt the middle class and the poor and put the future on hold to give tax cuts to upper-income people who've been getting it all along. or three, in spite of all the rhetoric, they'll just do what they've been doing for more than 30 years. they'll go in and cut the taxes way more than they cut spending, especially with that big defense increase, and they'll just explode the debt and weaken the economy. and they'll destroy the federal government's ability to help you by letting interest gobble up all your tax payments. don't you ever forget when you hear them talking about this that republican economic policies quadrupled the national debt before i took office, in the 12 years before i took

office and doubled the debt in the eight years after i left, because it defied arithmetic. it was a highly inconvenient thing for them in our debates that i was just a country boy from arkansas, and i came from a place where people still thought two and two was four. arithmetic. we simply cannot afford to give the reins of government to someone who will double down on trickle down. really. think about this: president obama -- president obama's plan cuts the debt, honors our values, brightens the future of our children, our families and our nation.

it's a heck of a lot better. it passes the arithmetic test, and far more important, it passes the values test. [cheers and applause] my fellow americans, all of us in this grand hall and everybody watching at home, when we vote in this election, we'll be deciding what kind of country we want to live in. if you want a winner-take- all, you're-on-your-own society, you should support the republican ticket. but if you want a country of shared opportunities and shared responsibility, a we're-all-in- this-together society, you should vote for barack obama and joe biden. [cheers and applause]

if you want -- if you want america -- if you want every american to vote and you think it is wrong to change voting procedures -- (jeers) -- just to reduce the turnout of younger, poorer, minority and disabled voters -- (jeers) -- you should support barack obama. [cheers and applause] and if you think -- if you think the president was right to open the doors of american opportunity to all those young immigrants brought here when they were young so they can serve in the military or go to college, you must vote for barack obama. [cheers and applause] if you want a future of shared

prosperity, where the middle class is growing and poverty is declining, where the american dream is really alive and well again and where the united states maintains its leadership as a force for peace and justice and prosperity in this highly competitive world, you have to vote for barack obama. [cheers and applause] look, i love our country so much. and i know we're coming back. for more than 200 years, through every crisis, we've always come back. (cheers.) people have predicted our demise ever since george washington was criticized for being a mediocre surveyor with a bad set of wooden false teeth. [laughter] (laughter.) and so far, every single person that's bet against america has lost money because we always come back.

[cheers and applause] we come through ever fire a little stronger and a little better. and we do it because in the end we decide to champion the cause for which our founders pledged their lives, their fortunes, their sacred honor -- the cause of forming a more perfect union. [cheers and applause] my fellow americans, if that is what you want, if that is what you believe, you must vote and you must re-elect president barack obama. [cheers and applause] god bless you and god bless america. [cheers and applause] ♪ [captioning performed by national captioning institute] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2012]

♪ [tom petty - "i won't bakck down" plays] ♪ [cheers and applause] ♪ [applause]

[tom petty - "i won't back down" plays] ♪ >> we have been watching former president bill clinton officially nominate president

obama for the democratic ticket. his speech was the final one before the roll call of states. we are taking a look now at the city of charlotte. the final night of the convention will unfold this evening. we will take your calls for the next few minutes to get your reaction on how things are going. democrat can call us at -- republicans, -- and independents -- we are also taking your tweets and other comments this hour. we have a tweet that says -- she is using a hash tag we have set up this week. we will go to the phones now and hear from chris, a democrat from

springfield, missouri. are you with us? last chance for chris in missouri. we will go on to jocelyn on our republicans' line. caller: hi. and i talking to a human? host: you are talking to c-span and our audience pay. caller: what i would like to know is why am i finding it -- i have a bad back. why am i find it so hard to collect the money i have paid into my social security for my social security disability? why is that so hard for me -- i mean, i paid into that money. host: how big of an issue do you

think social security and medicare are in the election this fall? caller: i think it is very serious. i have bills i can't even pay. rosemary's hear from and alabama. caller: hello. the thing i'm most concerned about is the medicare because i am on disability. also, on social media, mostly facebook, where the democrats have taken got out of their platform. that bothers me. i think god should be in their platform. host: we saw that put back in. did that make you feel better?

caller: i did not see that yet. host: let's take a look at some comments that were made last night. this is the ohio former gov. ted strickland. >> thank you, mr. chairman. this summer i was proud to serve this party as a committee chairman. i come before you today to discuss two important matters related to our party could go national platform. as an ordained minister, i am here to test and affirm that our belief in god is central to the american story and informs the values we have expressed in our platform. president obama recognizes jerusalem as the capital of israel and our party's platform shuld as well. i believe the amendment is being i believe the amendment is being projected on the